Comments on: 07-10-31 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-31/ Promoting Science and Critical Thinking Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:04:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jonathan http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-31/#comment-1887 Jonathan Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:57:58 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/eSkeptic/?p=248#comment-1887 Language exists in gradients, and making grammar the all or nothing absolute seems not only slightly arbitrary, but belittles what's already there. Grammar's not the be-all, end-all of noteworthiness in non-human language. Descartes said "arrange different words together, forming of them a statement by which they make known their thoughts". Grammar's not in that description; only the combining of multiple words as a form of expression, something I think both Washoe and Alex did. At the end, after having analyzed 2 experiments that turned out faulty it ends off with the absolute claim that Descartes was right, even though it didn't analyze Washoe and, by arbitrarily limiting this article to primates using human language, didn't discuss Alex, the very animal that brought the whole debate to attention. There's also no mention of animal language to each other (although with no grammar I know of). Also, the phrasing of the conclusion on Nim Chimpsky made it sound like the claim that if something is imitation it cannot be communication, which (if that was the underlying claim) is incorrect, since almost all language begins as imitation as a FORM of communication. Language exists in gradients, and making grammar the all or nothing absolute seems not only slightly arbitrary, but belittles what’s already there. Grammar’s not the be-all, end-all of noteworthiness in non-human language.

Descartes said “arrange different words together, forming of them a statement by which they make known their thoughts”. Grammar’s not in that description; only the combining of multiple words as a form of expression, something I think both Washoe and Alex did.

At the end, after having analyzed 2 experiments that turned out faulty it ends off with the absolute claim that Descartes was right, even though it didn’t analyze Washoe and, by arbitrarily limiting this article to primates using human language, didn’t discuss Alex, the very animal that brought the whole debate to attention. There’s also no mention of animal language to each other (although with no grammar I know of).

Also, the phrasing of the conclusion on Nim Chimpsky made it sound like the claim that if something is imitation it cannot be communication, which (if that was the underlying claim) is incorrect, since almost all language begins as imitation as a FORM of communication.

]]> By: Mark http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-10-31/#comment-1432 Mark Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:15:59 +0000 http://www.skeptic.com/eSkeptic/?p=248#comment-1432 Aboriginal languages has free word order. Why does word order is a necessity to constitute grammar? And why does grammar have to be human grammar. What about our ancestors? It seems that there was a progressive evolution in linguistic ability. Why does it have to be an all or nothing? Aboriginal languages has free word order. Why does word order is a necessity to constitute grammar?
And why does grammar have to be human grammar.

What about our ancestors? It seems that there was a progressive evolution in linguistic ability. Why does it have to be an all or nothing?

]]>